The bovine antibody (BLV1H12) which has an ultralong heavy chain complementarity determining region 3 (CDRH3) provides a novel scaffold for antibody engineering. By substituting the extended CDRH3 of BLV1H12 with modified CXCR4 binding peptides that adopt a β-hairpin conformation, we generated antibodies specifically targeting the ligand binding pocket of CXCR4 receptor. These engineered antibodies selectively bind to CXCR4 expressing cells with binding affinities in the low nanomolar range. In addition, they inhibit SDF-1-dependent signal transduction and cell migration in a transwell assay. Finally, we also demonstrate that a similar strategy can be applied to other CDRs and show that a CDRH2-peptide fusion binds CXCR4 with a K(d) of 0.9 nM. This work illustrates the versatility of scaffold-based antibody engineering and could greatly expand the antibody functional repertoire in the future.
The bovine antibody (BLV1H12) which has an ultralong heavy chain complementarity determining region 3 (CDRH3) provides a novel scaffold for antibody engineering. By substituting the extended CDRH3 of BLV1H12 with modified CXCR4 binding peptides that adopt a β-hairpin conformation, we generated antibodies specifically targeting the ligand binding pocket of CXCR4 receptor. These engineered antibodies selectively bind to CXCR4 expressing cells with binding affinities in the low nanomolar range. In addition, they inhibit SDF-1-dependent signal transduction and cell migration in a transwell assay. Finally, we also demonstrate that a similar strategy can be applied to other CDRs and show that a CDRH2-peptide fusion binds CXCR4 with a K(d) of 0.9 nM. This work illustrates the versatility of scaffold-based antibody engineering and could greatly expand the antibody functional repertoire in the future.
There is a considerable interest
in the generation of antibodies that not only bind a cell surface
receptor but also modulate receptor-mediated signal transduction.
Typically the identification of such functional antibodies involves
the generation of high-affinity binding antibodies against a target
protein and subsequent screening of the resulting clones for agonist
or antagonist activities.[1−6] Recently, we showed that it is possible to fuse growth factors and
cytokines directly into the heavy chain complementarity determining
region 3 (CDRH3) of the antibody BLV1H12, which has a well-structured
ultralong hypervariable region. The resulting fusion proteins express
well and are stable, retain the effector function of the original
signaling molecule, and have the favorable pharmacological properties
of the antibody molecule.[7,8] Here, we demonstrate
that biologically active cyclic peptides can also be engineered into
the CDR loops of this novel antibody framework and retain their biological
activities.As a model system to test the feasibility of this
approach we chose
the 16 residue cyclic peptide CVX15, which is an analogue of the horseshoe
crab peptide polyphemusin and an antagonist of the chemokine receptor
CXCR4.[9,10] CXCR4 is a G protein coupled receptor (GPCR)
of stromal cell-derived factor (SDF1/CXCL12) that is involved in a
number of developmental and physiological processes including stem
cell and lymphocyte migration.[11] For example,
the SDF-1/CXCR4 axis controls the trafficking of hematopoietic stem
cells (HSCs) from bone marrow to the periphery.[12] In addition, CXCR4 is a major receptor for HIV infection;[13] and overexpression of CXCR4 is associated with
the metastatic potential of various cancers.[14] Thus, antagonists of CXCR4 are being developed for the treatment
of metastatic cancer,[15] HIV infection,[16] and mobilization of HSCs for bone marrow transplants.[17]Recently, the X-ray crystal structure
of a CVX15-CXCR4 complex
revealed that the peptide is bound in a β-hairpin conformation
with its N- and C-termini inserted into the transmembrane cavity of
CXCR4 and its hairpin loop exposed to solvent[10] (Figure 1A). The bound conformation of CVX15
suggests that it might make an excellent candidate to attempt to generate
a novel CXCR4 antagonist antibody using antibody BLV1H12. This bovine
antibody has an ultralong (61 residues) CDRH3 with an antiparallel
β-sheet 20 Å in length, terminating in a disulfide cross-linked
knob domain[18] (Figure 1B). Replacement of this knob domain with the CVX15 hairpin
peptide might be expected to afford an antibody with an extended CDR
that can bind the ligand binding cavity of CXCR4. Schematic representations
of three candidate antibody fusion proteins are shown in Figure 1C. Briefly, we first replaced the unnatural amino
acids naphthylamine and citrulline of CVX15 by tryptophan and lysine
based on sequence alignment with the peptide T22 from which CVX15
was derived.[19] Next the N- and C-termini
of the peptide were fused to sequences that promote β-turns:
Gly-Arg (YRKCRGGRRWCYQK in bAb-AC1), Pro-Arg (bAb-AC2, YRKCRGPRRWCYQK),
or Gly-Asn-Gly-Arg (bAb-AC3, YRKCRGGNGRRWCYQK).[20−22] Based on the
CVX15-CXCR4 complex structure, it was expected that such a β-turn
linker would not affect the interaction of the peptide with CXCR4.
Finally, the loop region of CVX15 that resides outside the binding
pocket of CXCR4 was removed, and the resulting inverse hairpin sequence
was substituted for the knob domain of BLV1H12. The final designs
of the antibody-CVX fusion proteins are illustrated in Figure 1D. The three engineered antibodies were transiently
expressed in FreeStyle 293 cells as a bovine-human chimera in which
the Fc domain from human IgG1 was substituted for the bovine Fc. The
antibodies were secreted into culture medium and purified by protein
G column with yields of more than 5 mg/L (Figure
S1).
Figure 1
Antibody design. (A) Crystal structure of CXCR4 (green) in complex
with a β-hairpin peptide antagonist CVX15 (yellow) (PDB code 3OE0). (B) Crystal structure
of bovine antibody BLV1H12 (PDB code 4K3D) shows a disulfide cross-linked “knob”
domain (red) grafted onto a solvent-exposed β-strand “stalk”
(yellow). (C) A cartoon representation of the anti-CXCR4 antibody
design. The loop region of the β-hairpin that resides outside
the binding pocket of CXCR4 (blue) is removed, and the antiparallel
β-strand region (green) is reconnected by selected β-turns
to generate an inverted β-hairpin that is fused to the knob
domain truncated bovine antibody scaffold. (D) A schematic representation
of CVX15 and the engineered CDRs with β-turn promoting residues
highlighted in bold. Potential interactions of bAb-AC1 with the CXCR4
ligand-binding pocket (blue box) are depicted on the basis of an analysis
of the CXCR4-CVX15 complex.[10]
Antibody design. (A) Crystal structure of CXCR4 (green) in complex
with a β-hairpin peptide antagonist CVX15 (yellow) (PDB code 3OE0). (B) Crystal structure
of bovine antibody BLV1H12 (PDB code 4K3D) shows a disulfide cross-linked “knob”
domain (red) grafted onto a solvent-exposed β-strand “stalk”
(yellow). (C) A cartoon representation of the anti-CXCR4 antibody
design. The loop region of the β-hairpin that resides outside
the binding pocket of CXCR4 (blue) is removed, and the antiparallel
β-strand region (green) is reconnected by selected β-turns
to generate an inverted β-hairpin that is fused to the knob
domain truncated bovine antibody scaffold. (D) A schematic representation
of CVX15 and the engineered CDRs with β-turn promoting residues
highlighted in bold. Potential interactions of bAb-AC1 with the CXCR4
ligand-binding pocket (blue box) are depicted on the basis of an analysis
of the CXCR4-CVX15 complex.[10]Next, we examined the binding of the engineered
antibodies to CXCR4
by flow cytometry using humanJurkat cells, which highly express CXCR4.[23] As shown in Figure 2A,
all three antibodies (1 μg/mL) bind Jurkat cells, while the
control antibody (BLV1H12) showed no detectable binding. To confirm
that the observed binding is indeed mediated by CXCR4, flow cytometry
experiments were performed using Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells
(which have no detectable CXCR4 expression based on flow cytometry
analysis of cells stained with a FITC labeled anti-CXCR4 antibody
(clone 12G5)), with and without CXCR4 transfection (Figure S2). Incubation of CXCR4 transfected CHO cells with
1 μg/mL of the fusion antibodies resulted in a peak shift of
73.8%, 67.9%, and 67.4% for bAb-AC1, bAb-AC2, and bAb-AC3, respectively,
in flow cytometry experiments. No peak shift was observed with nontransfected
parental cells. In all cases, the control antibody showed no detectable
binding. These results indicate that these engineered antibodies indeed
bind specifically to CXCR4.
Figure 2
Flow cytometry analysis of interactions between
CXCR4 and engineered
antibodies. The engineered antibodies (A) bind to CXCR4 positive Jurkat
cells, (B) do not bind to CXCR4 negative CHO cells, (C) but bind to
CXCR4 transfected CHO cells. In all cases, the control antibody showed
no peak shift by flow cytometry analysis. The shaded peaks are cells
without antibody treatment.
Flow cytometry analysis of interactions between
CXCR4 and engineered
antibodies. The engineered antibodies (A) bind to CXCR4 positive Jurkat
cells, (B) do not bind to CXCR4 negative CHO cells, (C) but bind to
CXCR4 transfected CHO cells. In all cases, the control antibody showed
no peak shift by flow cytometry analysis. The shaded peaks are cells
without antibody treatment.To accurately determine the binding affinity between the
engineered
antibodies and CXCR4, we applied Tag-lite homogeneous time-resolved
fluorescence (HTRF) (Cisbio Bioassays).[24] Specific binding of fluorescently labeled SDF-1 to labeled SNAP-tag-CXCR4
results in a HTRF signal. The binding constant (Kd) between fluorescently labeled SDF-1 and the Tag-lite
CXCR4 receptor was determined to be 14.2 ± 1.2 nM (Figure S3). A dose-dependent competition was
observed between the engineered antibodies and 50 nM of labeled SDF-1
(Figure 3A). Assuming a competitive binding
mode, the Kds of bAb-AC1, bAb-AC2, and
bAb-AC3 to CXCR4 were calculated to be 2.1, 5.4, and 19.8 nM, respectively.[25] These results indicate that bAb-AC1 with a more
flexible glycine at i + 1 position of the hairpin
turn binds the best to CXCR4, which is consistent with the flow cytometry
analysis results. On the other hand, bAb-AC3, which has a β-turn
promoting sequence (Asn-Gly) added at the end of the β-hairpin,
has a decreased affinity compared to bAb-AC1 and bAb-AC2 that is probably
due to spatial constraints within the CXCR4 ligand binding pocket.
Figure 3
(A) Specific binding
between bAb-AC1–3 and CXCR4 was determined
by a Tag-lite HTRF binding assay. The binding affinities were calculated
based on the Cheng–Prusoff equation to give Ki values of 2.1, 5.4, and 19.8 nM for bAb-AC1, bAb-AC2,
and bAb-AC3, respectively. (B) Flow cytometry histogram demonstrating
nearly complete inhibition of 12G5 binding to CXCR4 by a 3-fold excess
of bAb-AC1.
Monoclonal antibody 12G5 is commonly used to assess CXCR4 expression
as well as functionally inhibit the SDF1-CXCR4 interaction.[26,27] The binding epitope of 12G5 includes extracellular loop (ECL) 2
as well as the N-terminus and ECL3.[28] Because
bAb-ACs are designed to bind the CXCR4 pocket, they should compete
with binding of 12G5 to the receptor. To confirm this notion, a competitive
binding assay was performed between 12G5 and bAb-AC1. A dose-dependent
inhibition was observed for 12G5 binding to Jurkat cells by increasing
concentrations of bAb-AC1 (Figure S4).
Flow cytometry analysis (Figure 3B) indicated
that a 3-fold excess of bAb-AC1 is sufficient to completely block
the binding of 12G5 to CXCR4 on Jurkat cells.(A) Specific binding
between bAb-AC1–3 and CXCR4 was determined
by a Tag-lite HTRF binding assay. The binding affinities were calculated
based on the Cheng–Prusoff equation to give Ki values of 2.1, 5.4, and 19.8 nM for bAb-AC1, bAb-AC2,
and bAb-AC3, respectively. (B) Flow cytometry histogram demonstrating
nearly complete inhibition of 12G5 binding to CXCR4 by a 3-fold excess
of bAb-AC1.Studies have shown that
the CDR2 loop in the antibody VH domain
is the most solvent exposed loop among all of the CDRs.[29] An examination of the BLV1H12 structure suggests
that the heavy chain CDR2 loop, which also connects two antiparallel
β-strands in the canonical immunoglobulin fold, makes no direct
contact with the rest of the antibody molecule. Thus, we hypothesized
that an engineered CDRH2 with an extended antiparallel β-strand
stalk can also be generated on the bovine antibody scaffold to afford
a more solvent exposed antigen recognition domain. This design could
be especially advantageous in the case of antibodies against certain
GPCRs, as the ligand binding sites are often buried in the cell membrane.
Therefore, a new antibody bAb-AC4 was designed by grafting the CDRH3
sequence from bAb-AC1 into the CDRH2 of the BLV1H12 scaffold (Figure S5). The truncated CDRH3 of the resulting
antibody was capped with a GGGGS linker. bAb-AC4 was expressed in
293 cells with a much higher yield (17 mg/L) compared to bAb-AC1.
This may be due to the fact that CDRH2 makes no direct contact with
the rest of the antibody and therefore has less effect on heavy chain
and light chain packing compared to the CDRH3 fusion. Binding between
bAb-AC4 and CXCR4 was confirmed by both flow cytometry (Figure S6) and Tag-lite HTRF assay as described
above (Figure S7) to give a Kd value of 0.92 nM against the receptor. This result indicates
that the CDRH2 is indeed a viable alternative to CDRH3 for functional
peptide grafting and suggests that it may be possible to simultaneously
graft two polypeptide agonists or antagonists into two distinct CDRs
of a single antibody fusion protein.Next we tested if these
engineered antibodies can block CXCR4-dependent
intracellular signaling. Activation of CXCR4 by SDF1 can be measured
by intracellular calcium flux, a secondary messenger involved in GPCR
signaling. Ramos cells, a non-Hodgkin lymphoma cell line that highly
express CXCR4, were loaded with Fluo-4calcium indicators and incubated
with 300 nM bAb-AC1, bAb-AC4, and the control antibody; SDF-1-mediated
release of intracellular calcium was monitored by a fluorescence increase.
As expected, bAb-AC1 significantly reduced calcium flux induced by
50 nM of SDF-1, whereas the same concentration of bAb-AC4 effectively
blocks the calcium signaling post SDF-1 activation (Figures 4A and S8). These results
indicate that these engineered antibodies are indeed CXCR4 antagonists.
Figure 4
(A) 300 nM of bAb-AC4
efficiently blocks SDF-1-induced CXCR4 activation
measured by intracellular calcium flux. (B) The antibodies bAb-AC1
and bAb-AC4 potently inhibit SDF-1-induced migration of Ramos cells
in a dose-dependent manner with EC50 values of 8.6 and 3.1 nM, respectively.
At saturating concentration, they are able to completely inhibit SDF-1-induced
chemotaxis.
The physiological function of SDF-1 is to trigger the migration
and recruitment of CXCR4 expressing cells. A chemotaxis assay was
used to test if bAb-ACs can block SDF-1-dependent cell migration (Figure S9). Preincubation with the antibodies
potently inhibits the migration of Ramos cells in a dose-dependent
manner (Figure 4B) with EC50 values of 2.1,
8.6, and 3.1 nM for 12G5, bAb-AC1, and bAb-AC4, respectively. Interestingly,
30 nM of bAb-AC4 completely neutralizes SDF-1-induced migration of
Ramos cells; while 12G5, even at its saturating concentration, cannot
100% block the migration (Figures 4B and S10). Studies have shown that the ECLs of CXCR4
exhibits considerable heterogeneity,[27] which
arises from post-translational modifications, including tyrosine sulfation,
glycosylation, disulfide formation, etc.[30] Thus, 12G5 recognizes only a subpopulation of CXCR4 molecules on
the cell surface, resulting in an incomplete inhibition of chemotaxis.[27] On the other hand, the conformational epitopes
inside the ligand binding pocket of CXCR4 are likely more homogeneous,
which makes the cavity targeting antibodies bAb-AC1 and bAb-AC4 more
effective against SDF-1-induced cell migration.(A) 300 nM of bAb-AC4
efficiently blocks SDF-1-induced CXCR4 activation
measured by intracellular calcium flux. (B) The antibodies bAb-AC1
and bAb-AC4 potently inhibit SDF-1-induced migration of Ramos cells
in a dose-dependent manner with EC50 values of 8.6 and 3.1 nM, respectively.
At saturating concentration, they are able to completely inhibit SDF-1-induced
chemotaxis.In conclusion, we have
demonstrated that by inserting a CXCR4 binding
peptide that adopts a β-hairpin conformation into the ultralong
CDRH3 of BLV1H12, one can generate potent antagonist antibodies against
CXCR4. In addition, the elongated CDRs of these engineered antibodies
can access the ligand binding pocket and effectively antagonize SDF1-dependent
signal transduction and cell migration. Moreover, such CDR loop engineering
is not limited to CDRH3 but can be applied to other CDRs. This result
suggests that it may be possible to endow a single antibody molecule
with two or more functions by grafting polypeptides into distinct
CDRs. Thus, the work described here further expands the therapeutic
potential of the antibody molecule.
Authors: J Hesselgesser; M Liang; J Hoxie; M Greenberg; L F Brass; M J Orsini; D Taub; R Horuk Journal: J Immunol Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Robert H Vonderheide; Keith T Flaherty; Magi Khalil; Molly S Stumacher; David L Bajor; Natalie A Hutnick; Patricia Sullivan; J Joseph Mahany; Maryann Gallagher; Amy Kramer; Stephanie J Green; Peter J O'Dwyer; Kelli L Running; Richard D Huhn; Scott J Antonia Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Sloane; Vic Raso; Dimiter S Dimitrov; Xiaodong Xiao; Shivashni Deo; Nick Muljadi; David Restuccia; Stuart Turville; Christine Kearney; Christopher C Broder; Hans Zoellner; Anthony L Cunningham; Linda Bendall; Garry W Lynch Journal: Immunol Cell Biol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.126
Authors: Cara A Mosley; Lawrence J Wilson; John M Wiseman; Jason W Skudlarek; Dennis C Liotta Journal: Expert Opin Ther Pat Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 6.674
Authors: David T Rodgers; Magdalena Mazagova; Eric N Hampton; Yu Cao; Nitya S Ramadoss; Ian R Hardy; Andrew Schulman; Juanjuan Du; Feng Wang; Oded Singer; Jennifer Ma; Vanessa Nunez; Jiayin Shen; Ashley K Woods; Timothy M Wright; Peter G Schultz; Chan Hyuk Kim; Travis S Young Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Rongsheng E Wang; Ying Wang; Yuhan Zhang; Chase Gabrelow; Yong Zhang; Victor Chi; Qiangwei Fu; Xiaozhou Luo; Danling Wang; Sean Joseph; Kristen Johnson; Arnab K Chatterjee; Timothy M Wright; Vân T B Nguyen-Tran; John Teijaro; Argyrios N Theofilopoulos; Peter G Schultz; Feng Wang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Xiaozhou Luo; Tao Liu; Ying Wang; Haiqun Jia; Yuhan Zhang; Dawna Caballero; Juanjuan Du; Rongsheng E Wang; Danling Wang; Peter G Schultz; Feng Wang Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Rongsheng E Wang; Tao Liu; Ying Wang; Yu Cao; Jintang Du; Xiaozhou Luo; Vishal Deshmukh; Chan Hyuk Kim; Brian R Lawson; Matthew S Tremblay; Travis S Young; Stephanie A Kazane; Feng Wang; Peter G Schultz Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Tao Liu; Yong Zhang; Yan Liu; Ying Wang; Haiqun Jia; Mingchao Kang; Xiaozhou Luo; Dawna Caballero; Jose Gonzalez; Lance Sherwood; Vanessa Nunez; Danling Wang; Ashley Woods; Peter G Schultz; Feng Wang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 11.205